David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Note: this is a stable June 2012 draft of a paper (uploaded to PhilSci archive), some of the content of which will enter into a book-in-progress, _Metaphysical Emergence_. Nearly all accounts of emergence take this to involve both broadly synchronic dependence and (some measure of) ontological and causal autonomy. Beyond this agreement, however, accounts of emergence diverge into a bewildering variety, reﬂecting that the core notions of dependence and autonomy have multiple, often incompatible interpretations. Luckily for philosophical purposes, however, much of this apparent diversity is superficial---or so I argue in this paper. I start by considering a notorious problematic associated with special science entities---namely, the problem of higher-level causation (a generalization of the problem of mental causation). As we will see, of the various strategies for addressing this problem there are two which plausibly accommodate both the dependence and the ontological and causal autonomy of special science entities. These strategies in turn suggest two distinct schema for metaphysical emergence, which I call 'Weak' and 'Strong' emergence, respectively. The two schema are similar in that each imposes a (different, specific) condition on the powers of entities taken to be emergent, relative to the powers of their dependence base entities. (Importantly, the notion of “power” at issue here is metaphysically almost entirely neutral, primarily reﬂecting commitment just to the plausible thesis that what causes an entity may---perhaps only contingently---bring about are associated with how the entity is---that is, with its features.) But the conditions, and accounts, are also crucially different; in particular, one is compatible with physicalism, while the other is not. I go on to consider the main accounts of emergent dependence and emergent autonomy, showing how, properly understood and (in some cases) diambiguated, these aim to instantiate one or the other schema.
|Keywords||Emergence Metaphysics fundamentality grounding physicalism British Emergentists realization degrees of freedom determinable/determinate relation subset realization|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jessica M. Wilson (2010). The Causal Argument Against Component Forces. Dialectica 63 (4):525-554.
Similar books and articles
Paul Humphreys (2008). Synchronic and Diachronic Emergence. Minds and Machines 18 (4):431-442.
Sydney Shoemaker (2002). Kim on Emergence. Philosophical Studies 58 (1-2):53-63.
Carl Gillett (2002). The Varieties of Emergence: Their Purposes, Obligations and Importance. Grazer Philosophische Studien 65 (1):95-121.
Bryon Cunningham (2001). The Reemergence of 'Emergence'. Philosophy of Science 3 (September):S63-S75.
Paul Humphreys (2008). Computational and Conceptual Emergence. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):584-594.
D. Heard (2006). A New Problem for Ontological Emergence. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (222):55-62.
Mark A. Bedau (2008). Is Weak Emergence Just in the Mind? Minds and Machines 18 (4):443-459.
Olivier Massin (2006). Complementarity Cannot Resolve the Emergence–Reduction Debate: Reply to Harré. Synthese 151 (3):511 - 517.
Mark A. Bedau (2002). Downward Causation and the Autonomy of Weak Emergence. Principia 6 (1):5-50.
Added to index2009-10-06
Total downloads178 ( #2,694 of 1,089,047 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #8,605 of 1,089,047 )
How can I increase my downloads?